I don't agree. How much "the cells should be able to handle" is a function of how long you want them to last. There are chemical and physical processes involved that are affected by a number of variables of which battery IR is just one. It is highly likely Tesla has found that aging batteries (at least with their older chemistries) do not handle high charge rates as well as new ones especially at lower temperatures.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
New 85kWH battery for my 2013 P85+
- Thread starter Chilam
- Start date
Yeah, but... If that were the case, then the charge speed reductions should vary on a per-pack basis, based on analysis by the BMS, but that's not what happened. There was an across the board, uniform cap implemented by Tesla (see ABRP blog), with no apparent consideration to pack health, age, milage, or other factors. See - Tesla Supercharging - Summer 2019 Update
By all indications, my pack is in great shape - less than 4% degradation after 85k miles, less than 4mv imbalance, rarely charged above 70%, and no indication of "batterygate" issues, yet I have the same supercharging cap as an 85kWh pack on the verge of failure.
Unfortunately we don't know what the BMS is using to determine maximum charge rates. It could be misinterpreting data from your pack or identifying an issue that does not affect capacity. The constantly morphing BMS doesn't make it any easier for the user to troubleshoot either.
SmartElectric
Active Member
The charge throttling matches the slower charge rates our "Classic" Feb 2013 Tesla S85 had from the start with the original "A" battery pack specification. Namely, maximum 90kW, and charge curve roughly
RATE (in kW) = 110-SOC% in warm weather
and maximum 40 kW in cold weather (and SOC under 75%)
and very slow charging above 90% (one hour from 90 to 100).
Some old cars are throttled even more than this, but as I posted in the "charge gate" threads, many of the charge curves and behavior match what my car had from new. Tesla very possibly throttled cars to the charge curve on the oldest 7+ year old S85's like mine, which has shown exceptional battery life, 97% original capacity, and still charges to 90kW peak in warm weather.
I don't know why you keep posting this. So what? It's good enough for you, so it should be good enough for us? We should just learn to love it and be happy with what Tesla left us? Misery loves company? What?
SmartElectric
Active Member
Please don’t ascribe words or meaning that I never said. I was providing a factual response that Tesla may be choosing to use the charging rates and other elements that were applied to older Tesla’s based on seeing the effect those reduced long term rates of maximum charging and other potential elements that benefit pack longevity.
It’s a fact that my old pack behaves similarly to the charge gated packs. And my car isn’t affected by charge gate. And Tesla May have chosen to revert cars to a charging profile that has statistically shown to be beneficial to longevity.
It is not. You've established that you think so, but every A pack I ever had in a loaner charged substantially faster than a chargegate limited battery. It's not even remotely close. If your pack always charged like chargegate packs, your battery was the slowest A pack ever made, was faulty from the factory, and should have been warranty replaced many years ago.
Chargegate profile is nothing like yours. You would know if you had a chargegate reduction - A packs never slowed to 50kW above 10% SOC and if yours always did it is a lemon.
I think your and SmartElectric's definition of a "chargegate" profile are significantly different. My understanding and application of that term is that "chargegate" happened to every Tesla vehicle, or at least every Model S/X (...maybe every post original 85kWh version A pack if SmartElectric is correct). Certainly chargegate has been much more drastic on a lot of the cars that are also affected by batterygate. My uncapped 85D has a charge profile now roughly in line with SmartElectric's, save that it hits 128kW very briefly (~10 seconds) at low SOC and is down to 90kW at about 30% SOC. After that the profile is approximated by SOC + kW = 110. Used to be SOC + kW = 125 through a large part of the charging range.
Clearly the capped cars are being throttled much more aggressively (and even that seems to vary), but even otherwise healthy 85 packs now seem to be following the "A" profile at SmartElectric suggests.
Agreed, he doesn't seem to realize what a chargegate profile is. He's repeatedly claimed his car had a "chargegate" profile since it was brand new because it was limited to 90kw peak. I don't think he realizes what Chargegate actually does because his car charges faster than everybody else's chargegate limited car. Chargegate isn't a peak lowering like the A packs, it's an extremely rapid taper. I haven't seen 90kW in a yea and w would love to swap my battery for his since he thinks his is limited already.
It's a matter of perspective. His used to be slower so he thinks everyone was slowed to his familiarly lower than others' numbers. The reality is chargegate lowered us a lot more than Tesla had limited anyone before. The first batteries to be throttled were the 90kwh v1 and v2 packs, and even those were faster than charge-gated packs are now. Peak isn't the issue with chargegate - some people still see 120kW or more... taper is the problem and the A packs weren't originally taper limited just peak limited.
It's a matter of perspective. His used to be slower so he thinks everyone was slowed to his familiarly lower than others' numbers. The reality is chargegate lowered us a lot more than Tesla had limited anyone before. The first batteries to be throttled were the 90kwh v1 and v2 packs, and even those were faster than charge-gated packs are now. Peak isn't the issue with chargegate - some people still see 120kW or more... taper is the problem and the A packs weren't originally taper limited just peak limited.
The taper he is reporting as having been the original taper of his battery pack is now approximately the taper of all 85s as I have understood it, past the point where we drop below 90kW. Chargegate has reduced all 85s to an "A" battery profile (past about 25 - 30% SOC), and has further limited you and others also infected with batterygate. I think SmartElectric is using the term consistently with others here on the forum. Yes, your "chargegate" profile is worse - maybe much worse - likely due to some defect found in your battery (that Tesla is of course not recognizing as such), but SmartElectric's point stands - it seems like all 85s are now being limited to the original "A" battery taper profile.
I wish I had that taper! Chargegate is much worse, the A packs didn't always take 3-4 hours to supercharge and still reached 80% in less than 2 hours. 85-A profile was a limited peak, not a 30kW by 40% crippled car.
I know the cells can't handle it.
If you used your car hard.
You got this "charge gate reduction" years ago.
Som of us had this happend in 2016 and 2017.
My friend got a new battery after a contactor gave up. Back to old "faster" charging.
You don't have to drive your car hard to be in #chargegate. I hardly ever supercharge—maybe 15 times in the 6 years I've owned my car. The rest of the time has been on 40A A/C line. My supercharger speeds are now gimped.
I know you don't need to.
Just saying some of us had this restrictions year's ago. Because of hard use.
It's totally normal to have degrading battery's.
Tesla would have world domination if they made batterys that could handle this kind of use year after year...
Just saying some of us had this restrictions year's ago. Because of hard use.
It's totally normal to have degrading battery's.
Tesla would have world domination if they made batterys that could handle this kind of use year after year...
Please stop associating the issues we have with normal battery degradation. We are not talking about degradation.
We are referring to Tesla deliberately reducing the maximum voltage that each cell can be charged to (i.e., limiting the maximum voltage of each cell from the original voltage maximum of approximately 4.2 volts to a CAPPED maximum voltage of approximately 4.1 volts or less, which has the effect of resulting in an immediate range lose of up to approximately 31 miles.
Further, we are also talking about an action taken by Tesla to reduce the maximum power at which a battery pack will charge at a supercharger and/or changing the taper rate of the charge, effectively reducing the power applied to charge the battery pack, resulting in a significant increase in the time needed to charge the battery pack.
These two issues have nothing whatsoever to do with “normal battery degradation”.
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
Can we please stop associating the entire issue with the topic of this thread, which is a newly released battery type/revision?
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
That is their plan, and there are a few ways to achieve that. If you change the cell structure and use a higher number of thinner layers you get higher C rates but give up some energy density, which is what I think they did with the Model 3 pack. They could also change to a higher cycle life chemistry with lower energy density. Or a combination of both methods. Or some new chemistry which gives the best of both worlds, which is of course ideal. Battery Day will hopefully reveal their plans to some degree.
Fliptrader
Member
I was wondering what the difference is between @Chilam message alert “Maximum charging Range Limited” differs from the message I received yesterday 1/25/20 “Maximum battery charge level reduced”. I have the same symptoms on my 2012 Model S 85 with 97,200 miles. I bought the car as a CPO in 2016. It is still under the 4 year/ 50,000 mile warranty by 300 miles... I was affected by the battery gate. Yesterday at the SC I was only able to charge 40 miles in a hour. It started at 32 kw than after an hour at 3 kw! Left the supercharger at 69 miles. I scheduled an appointment next Monday. Hopefully I also will get the new 85 battery.
Tesla has a legal problem on its hands promising specific performance and SuC times without disclosing, in a clear and visible manner, that such performance and SuC times will drop with use and age.
Similar threads
- Article
